The Discovery Channel (which my kids LOVE and we LOVE them watching it!) will show a documentary on Space-Based Solar Power at 10pm on 12 September, 2008. We filmed it in Washington DC at the Space Frontier Foundation’s New$pace 2008 conference (you are a member, aren’t you?). It was so totally cool working with the pros from the Futures Channel who did the filming (they must work closely with the Discovery Channel). It was amazing watching them do their thing.  They turned a small conference room at the hotel into a studio, wired us up, created mood lighting, and all that Hollywood stuff. These guys were entirely professional and WOW, it was entirely motivational being around professional media people who want to tell a story so kids get excited!

So, here is the preview from our most excellent friends at the Futures Channel:

Space-Based Solar Power on the Futures Channel

Make sure you tune-in to the Discovery Channel when it airs. Record it, and share it with all your friends, consistent with the laws in your viewing area*!

Cheers!

Coyote

* We’ve got to be careful with copyright laws…I once got into a kerfuffel because I described a baseball game to a friend of mine without the expressed written permission of the commissioner of major league baseball!

1. How would a company obtain a geostationary parking slot for a SBSP satellite?
2. How would a company obtain a license to broadcast power from space over radio frequencies?

Excellent questions. Here are the answers that I slapped together from the Internet. (Special thanks to Maldivian Digital, and Wikipedia for having some well researched info posted on their sites!) Please check my work and let me know if I’ve embarrassed myself in public (again):

1. How does a company obtain a geostationary parking slot for a SBSP satellite?
   • Parking slots are allotted internationally, by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
   • However, the ITU only allocates orbital slots to countries, and not to private sector companies.
   • Companies must negotiate with countries who hold the rights to orbital slots of interest. They must establish an agreement whereby space-based solar power satellites can thereafter occupy the countries’ allocated orbital slot(s).
   • This is a common and standard practice by companies operating communications satellites in the geostationary belt. Space-based solar power companies will follow these routine and well established procedures to acquire orbital parking slots.
   • When satellites are located close to each other, their up-link and downlink frequencies and polarisations are to be coordinated, so that there is no interference. Sometimes this requires that existing frequencies or polarisations be altered by existing satellites, to accommodate a new entrant.
   • The ITU which allocates the orbital slots (to countries who in turn may grant use of their slots to commercial ventures) requires that all players coordinate their frequencies so that there is no disruption of service. The new entrant is obliged to ensure that their transmissions will not disrupt existing services.
   • Frequency coordination is a technical matter, and not easily resolved, particularly in regions over India, where practically every orbital slot is occupied by one or more satellites.
2. How would a company obtain a license to broadcast power from space over radio frequencies?
   • Space-based solar power companies most likely will broadcast power from space to Earth using radio frequencies in the industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) radio bands originally reserved internationally for the use of RF electromagnetic fields for industrial, scientific, and medical purposes other than communications. In general, communications equipment must accept any interference generated by ISM equipment.
   • ISM bands are defined by the ITU-R in 5.138, 5.150, and 5.280 of the Radio Regulations. Individual countries’ use of the bands designated in these sections may differ due to variations in national radio regulations. Because communication devices using the ISM bands must tolerate any interference from ISM equipment, these bands are typically given over to uses intended for unlicensed operation, since unlicensed operation typically needs to be tolerant of interference from other devices anyway. In the United States of America, ISM uses of the ISM bands are governed by Part 18 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, while Part 15 Subpart B contains the rules for unlicensed communication devices, even those that use the ISM frequencies. Thus, designers of equipment for use in the United States in the ISM bands should be familiar with the relevant portions of both Part 18 and Part 15 Subpart B of the FCC Rules.
   • Specifically, space-based solar power companies will broadcast energy from space to Earth at 2.45 GHz, or 5.8 GHz
   • In recent years these bands have also been shared with license-free error-tolerant communications applications such as wireless LANs and cordless phones in the 0.915 GHz, 2.45 GHz, and 5.8 GHz bands. Because licensed devices already are required to be tolerant of ISM emissions in these bands, unlicensed low power uses are generally able to operate in these bands without causing problems for licensed uses.
   • SBSP companies must engage with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to secure general approval for the use of these frequencies.
   • SBSP companies must also engage with customer countries’ agencies responsible for national radio regulations (eg, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US) to obtain approval to use either 2.45 GHz or 5.8 GHz for power broadcasts in their country.
   • If these radio frequencies are unavailable, SBSP companies might pursue power beaming using lasers at 1.0 micron or 0.86 micron wavelengths. This removes the need for any frequency approval, as lasers are not regulated as radio frequencies.
   • SBSP companies must also engage with national aviation agencies (eg, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the US) to establish no-fly zones around radio or laser energy corridors between the satellite and its ground-based receivers, as may be required by national or local laws.

There’s a lot that goes into building space-based solar power systems. Let’s get it out on the table so we can take a look at all that goes into it and think together about how to grease the tracks of progress.

Cheers!

Coyote

It is important for us to understand how ITAR (WIHWAP) can affect our space industry, because space-based solar power is such a huge undertaking that international partnerships will be required not only for construction, but also for ownership and development of an international customer base.

The Economist published an article yesterday criticizing ITAR (WIHWAP). The AIAA Daily Launch (an email news service for members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics–you are a member, aren’t you?) described the article this way:

Economist: U.S. export rules handicap space industry.

The Economist (8/21) editorialized that “the zealous application of the export rules is the American space industry’s biggest handicap,” noting critics who say the system “fails to distinguish between militarily sensitive hardware that should be controlled and widely available commercial technologies.” The Economist cited several examples of “American components and satellites…suffering” on the international market “because of the cost and delays in doing business with the firms that make them,” and added that in the past “the State Department ignored such complaints.” However, “there are signs of change,” including “small adjustments” to the administration of ITAR regulations and “a promise that licensing decisions would be taken within 60 days of an application.” Additionally, “work is also afoot to update the munitions list, which contains the set of military technologies that must be protected.” The Economist concluded, “Such change is overdue.”

Here is the link to the Economist article, which is titled: “Gravity is not the main obstacle for America’s space business. Government is.” Please give it a good read.

What are your thoughts on the issues raised in the article? How can we ensure that the export control environment is conducive to the types of partnerships space-based solar power requires?

Cheers!

Coyote

Included here are the slides he used to describe a new way of thinking of national energy consumption. \”SSP In a Changing Energy Diet\” Instead of discussing the energy “mix” of sources, he rightly points out that like calories in a person’s diet, not all calories are equal.

He wants us to think in terms of our national energy “diet.” In my own terms, I think of petroleum as calories from a delicious fatty steak and solar-electric as calories from a healthy piece of fruit. (Boy, that steak sounds good right now! Note to self; never blog on an empty stomach!)

Take a look at his slides. Please consider the questions he poses at the end and please discuss your thoughts here. Does he change the way you think? Adjust it a little? Give you new analogies to describe our energy consumption?

Cheers!

Coyote

Click here for the “Interim Assessment!”

From the Foreword of the report itself:

Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high priority for the Department of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space.

In March 2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of space‐based solar power (SBSP) as a potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well. First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look” Study. In the decade since this last study, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications of SBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a no‐cost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring and Summer of 2007.

Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the attached report was compiled through an innovative and collaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts around the world. I applaud the high quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants who contributed in the last six months. I encourage them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek to answer the question of whether SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind.

This interim assessment contains significant initial findings and recommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders, and citizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is improving with each passing year. Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actually developing a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP presents as part of a national and international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.

//signed 9 Oct 07//
JOSEPH D. ROUGE, SES
Acting Director, National Security Space Office

To give you a basis for analysis, by 2050 the goal is to have forty or so concentrator-photovoltaic space-based solar power (SBSP) satellites in geostationary orbit, each broadcasting via microwave between 2-5 gigawatts of power to terrestrial electrical power grids, with 1-to-5 broadcast antennas that can beam power to as many locations.

This must be done using a sound business case. John Mankins calculates that this can be achieved by keeping the costs of delivery and assembly on orbit below $3,500 per kilogram–keeping the cost to customers below $0.10 per kilowatt/hour. This will drive robotic assembly and tug systems to pull these enormous structures from low orbits to geostationary. On orbit fueling stations will be required. Paul Werbos believes the best way to do this is to get launch costs down below $200 per kilogram.  But several other factors help make the business case. For example, if the price of other energy sources goes up it helps to close the business case for SBSP. Other factors include the efficiencies associated with solar collectors, energy conversion, antennas/rectennas, signal path loss, etc. Dennis Wingo and others have suggested that the first customers for space-based solar power will be international–in areas such as India and Japan where the price per kilowatt/hour is astronomical compared to the Americas or Europe. All of this goes into making the business case.

There will also be times when space-based solar power becomes priceless. When the Tsunami crushed the Pacific rim, when Hurricane Katrina flattened America’s Gulf Coast, and when United Nations forces responded to the beleaguered Darfur region the value of simply broadcasting power immeidately to the relief efforts would have been priceless in assisting the salvation of countless lives and facilitated the more immediate recovery of these disaster torn regions.

Keep in mind American and Allied forces operating inside Iraq. Convoying petroleum through the streets of Iraqi cities is a large source of casualties…and the electrical power plants that convert that petroleum into electricity are under frequent attack…and the lights go out…and the people aren’t happy. As I’ve mentioned before, one of our defense analysts calculated that the U.S. is paying between $300-to-$800 per gallon for fuel delivered to the Iraqi electric plants. Mike Hornetschek reports that 70% of all logistics movements inside Iraq is petroleum.

Inside Iraq, at this very moment–where people are dying–a supply of space-based solar power would have that priceless quality. And this is true wherever military forces and others are engaged not only in combat, but in nation building, humanitarian relief, disaster response, etc, etc, etc.

The question was posed to me today, “What does the military need.” Here goes:

According to Mike Hornitschek, a military base inside the United States consumes approximately 10 megawatts of electrical power. Forward military base overseas are consuming approximately 5 megaWatts of electrical power.

I need space-based solar power satellites of the 5 megawatt class. Let’s say by 2015. This capability will transform our logistics and reduce our vulnerabilities. The development of this class of space-based solar power satellite is designed to deliver that priceless quality of energy. Best of all, it can be done with current technology using current spacelift vehicles. Think about that.

But most important of all, developing the 5 megawatt class of satellite gets the ball rolling towards the 2050 vision that started this discussion. We WILL learn a great deal and we WILL find new efficiencies. We may make huge adjustments in the trade spaces as detailed in a previous discusion, and must be prepared to do so. In pressing ahead to field a 5 megawatt system, we will also be building the space industrial base and developing the rquisite spacefaring infrastructure to make the business case for the 2050 vision all the more viable.

There will likely be cities or regional utilities that will want to buy their own 5 megawatt satellite (or larger) as a backup, which will help the business case even more and give us a better look at problems that lie waiting for us as we build bigger systems.

The goal, then, for 2020 would be building/fielding a 10 megawatt system…1 gigawatt sytem by 2030…2-5 gigawatt system by 2040…on the way to fielding 40 2-5 gigawatt systems by 2050 as described above.

All the while the drive must be towards commercializing this effort at the earliest possible time. Energy must move at the speed and price established by free markets, not by government bureaucracy. To that end, I am working with Ed Morris and Mike Beavin at the Department of Commerce-Office of Space Commericalization to make this happen.

Your thoughts???

“Because of the enormous cost of addressing global warming, the energy legislation considered by Congress so far will make barely a dent in the problem, while farther-reaching climate proposals stand a remote chance of passage.”

I tend to agree with Mufson.

We must not kid ourselves; nothing is a more farther-reaching climate proposal than space-based solar power. If pursued for that reason alone–especially as a big government program–I believe nothing would come of it. Not to despair. There are many more reasons to develop space-based solar power, and another way of going about it.

We must always keep in mind that space-based solar power systems confer additional independence from foreign energy sources and the entanglements they so often engender. Also, as traditional energy resources become scarcer and competition for them increase, energy provided by space-based solar power systems help reduce the incentives for energy wars.  In addition, eventually we will be able to broadcast power from space to places in dire need of energy such as sites of natural or manmade disasters, war zones, and areas of the world without much infrastructure

Space critics will point out that developing clean energy alternatives such as ground-based solar, wind, and nuclear power can be completed sooner using off-the-shelf technology, and probably deliver energy at a cheaper cost to the consumer.  I’m not going to argue with that.  I hope all nations seriously and aggressively pursue such alternatives!   But another really good reason for pursuing space-based solar power is because doing so advances the art of spacefaring.  The infrastructure required to make space-based solar power a reality–cheaper, reliable, reusable spacelift, on-orbit assembly, operating enormous space structures, etc–are capabilities in the critical technology paths to exploration and the full commercialization of space. Alternatives such as ground-based solar power, wind, and nuclear power are good and necessary, but leave us trapped on Earth.  There is a universe of untapped resources beyond.

We’ve all heard it…”Why go to space when all of our problems are right here on Earth?”  For starters, we want to go to space because the solutions to many of our problems can be found in space; energy, raw resources, and other places to live.  Tapping into the abundant solar energy that is ceaslessly blowing past Earth represents the easiest way to begin solving our problems here on Earth from space…and leaves in place educational, industrial, and commercial infrastructures that will make all future endeavors in space easier.

Our goal is to make space-based solar power affordable by the customer and profitable for the company who trades it.  The National Security Space Office is working with our friends in the Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce to develop space-based solar power in the commercial sector. We seek to incentivize the pathway for the commercial sector to develop space-based solar power–tapping into an industry of potentially trillions of dollars annually.

We want to leverage off of other space programs already in the pipeline to develop the infrastrucutre we require, and make prudent investments in niche technologies to help close the business case for space-based solar power.  The last thing we want is a large government program that will invariably become a political hot potato(e)! 

Your comments are most welcomed!

So…how do we make the business case for space-based solar power?

We need to keep in mind the sage advice of Machiavelli:

One should keep in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success than to introduce a new system of things; for he who introduces it has all those who profit fro the old system as his enemies, and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit the new system.